tv Washington Journal CSPAN October 1, 2014 7:00am-10:01am EDT
the first case of ebola has been diagnosed in the united states. officials say they are confident they can contain and isolate the disease. more on those stories in a bit. first we want to pick your brain this morning about the candidates running for office this november. what influenced your decision making? how are you picking these
candidates? is it the commercials? the endorsements, debates or biographies. also, send us a tweet at c-span. you can join the conversation on facebook.com. we'll get to your thoughts in just a second. how you decide on a candidate, there's the question for you. the phone lines are open. start dialing in now. politico has this headline. gop sets sights on bigger house gains. and in it they report the house republicans have been destined for modest gains in the midterm despite a favorable political environment. now just five weeks until election day the party is raising its ambitions, long thought to be beyond the gop's reach. the goal, achieve the biggest
house majority since harry truman's presidency. the national republican congressional committee reserved millions of dollars of tv advertising time in two house districts. one in upstate new york, the other in northern maine, that broke sharply for obama in the 2012 election. gop prospects have been on the rise. that's what the republicans are planning for the midterm elections. 34 days away. then you have this morning the hill newspaper reporting about -- this headline, about the senate race in kentucky, says democrats place can risky bet against the gop leader mitch mcconnell. the hill reporting democrats are taking a risky bet.
democrats are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. recent polls show that esis trailing mcdonnell by an average five points. an independent caller, excuse me nick in fair view, tennessee, how are you deciding your candidate for the midterm elections? >> caller: let me preface this by saying as an independent, the democratic party is the party of slime and the establishment republicans excluding the tea party people is the party of stupid. and i am -- from now on actually started a while back, the federal government has been growing since the implementation of federal income tax. from now on we need to start a
peaceful revolution for small government from the federal government. the federal government is at war with the rest of the country. i mean -- and so whoever runs and can convince me somehow or another that they're for smaller government i'll vote for -- we got lamar all ex-and -- i will not vote for him. there are amendments on the ballot for smaller government so i will vote along those lines. >> host: so you'll go and vote, but you'll skip the senate race, just not mark anybody? >> well as an independent running, i need to communicate with his office, and have him come to a tea party group and speak. if he can convince us u.s. for limited government, i'll vote for him. >> host: okay. larry in miss, democratic call her, go ahead. >> i would like to say the republican party is the party of slime. i would only vote for someone
that has their policies, if their policies -- if the republican party stand for big business and the rich they don't care about the myel class or the poor, they always taking things that help the middle class and the poor, i would never vote republican. thank you and have a nice day. >> host: what policies do you care about? >> caller: pardon? >> host: what policy do you want your democratic candidates to have? >> caller: well, i like the policies that they're putting forward to try to rebuild our infrastructure and raise the minimum wage and give us health care that we can afford. i do not trust the republicans on doing that. they put -- they care about the middle class and health care and they never put up a bill that show that they care. >> host: okay. all right. that's larry. we're getting your thoughts on how you choose your candidate for this november midterm elections. with control of the senate up for grabs, how are you deciding
who you're going to vote for? not all of you are voting on a senate contest, but want to hear your thoughts this morning on your house candidates and how you're deciding in these races. the "wall street journal" this morning has this piece about how many candidates in these senate races are dressing for battle literally had. what's the dress code for senate candidate in many states this year? it includes military fatigues. at least five candidates in close senate races are playing up the military service, running tv and online ads that include photos of them in uniform.
this from the "wall street journal" this morning with these pictures in the newspaper, gary peters, who is running in michio have below that scott brown, who is the former massachusetts senator but now running in new hampshire, in his national guard uniform. and below that, iowa, in her military fatigues, and one of her ads. morris in san diego, california, republican caller, how are you choosing your candidate? >> caller: if they have a r next to their name i'll vote for them. i think it's time there was a wave of election for
republicans. even though the media is painting it as something less than that, sending troops to africa to contain ebola, the irs scandal, isis, ukraine, the southern border it goes on and on, and it's time that the american people let our president know exactly how we feel about all these issues. so if they have a r next to their name, i'm going to vote for them. i would encourage all democrats to please stay home on election day. thank you. >> host: let me ask you this. what -- what is motivating you right now about -- what message from the party, from the republican party, is resonating with you right now? >> caller: there's no one particular issue. it's just -- seems like the democrats have caused a house of cards in government in this country, and so i'm just ready for a change. >> host: it's mr. that you're voting against democrats than you're voting for the party? >> caller: that's probably a fair statement.
>> host: okay. johnny in winston, salem, north carolina, independent caller. >> caller: how you doing this morning? >> host: good morning. go ahead. how are you choosing your candidate? what's influencing your decision? >> caller: well, like i was saying, i'm on disability, and you know what i'm saying how a lot of these -- i'm 60, and when -- when i first started working in this country, and i've been working 40 some years, i was informed that when you are -- if you have to come out of work or get hurt from working or being disabled, that you have these programs that now they are cutting. but i paid into the system for these programs. >> host: this is important enough to you to go to the polls to vote for which party?
>> caller: both parties are not raising the issue of stuff that happens to the middle class, which i put myself in the middle class area. >> host: all right. we'll go to june in wisconsin, republican caller, june, good morning. >> caller: hi. actually i'm an independent, but i'm thinking voting democratic. and by the way the word is pronounced resonance. >> thank you. i couldn't think of it. >> caller: are you human or something? anyway, yes, i'm leaning towards the democratic party because at least they seem to care about the working class, the middle class, the poor, the voting rights, and it's very important that people realize that american jobs act that the president put out there a couple years ago, a couple million jobs, the republicans won't even
bring it up for a vote and people need to realize that, you know. this is not about, you know, the ads that somebody is putting out there making it seem like the democrats are, you know, crazy or whatever. but there are actual people who we have sent to washington who are voting against things that would actually make us have a better life, and i hope people just think about that before they go pushing republican, if you know what i'm saying. >> host: okay. all right. that's june in wisconsin, republican caller there. want to show you a couple of tv ads, wondering if this is -- if the tv ads that you're seeing are helping you to decide or are hurting the candidate in your opinion. this is from the kentucky paper that we just talked about. the latest tv ad attacking senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. >> i approve this message.
he didn't show up to vote and true funding. on days he found times for a lobbiest fundraiser and was on two tv shows. 30 years is long enough. >> host: the kentucky senate candidate alison lundigram, that is senator pat robertson the republican running in a close race with his opponent, greg orman. this is what he has to say about greg orman. >> i'm pat roberts, i approve this message.
now orman says he supports giving amnesty to millions of illegal im grabs. in washington, orman would vote with obama for amnesty. >> host: in the kansas senate race there is an ad from senator pat roberts, calling him the politician, "the washington post" has a headline about that. 34 year incumbent just attacks someone who never held office as a politician. we'll go to john in akron, oh hey oh, democratic call her. hi, john, good morning. >> caller: hello, greta. i want to talk about the guy from michigan, his name is ralph, and he is talking about the tax paying for the wars and that. and i think, you know, if they don't want to pay taxes for that, i think, you know, you know, should take your check and pay for the war yourself.
and also give it to the -- wouldn't it be fair? >> host: okay. tim, harper woods, michigan, independent caller. how are you choosing your candidate for election day 2014? >> caller: first of all, good morning, greta. the way i feel like these republicans, i can't believe that they actually stood up there and said what they say. did they go to bed thinking about this or wake up thinking about it? always this crooked stuff, they want everybody to think about what they want to think about. you know, we still got high unemployment, people looking for work, you know. all this stuff that really what they talking about really is irrelevant. and to these people stand up and see who is the best candidate, no dirty politics, well then you
know they'll see through the smoke and mirrors and see that these people is full of it. >> host: so tim, in michigan, are you seeing ads from candidates about jobs and what they want to do about jobs? >> caller: well, on the republicans they've been saying that for a thousand years, but still they steady cutting programs and cutting this and cutting that. so how could you believe somebody like that? >> host: okay. all right. pat in madison, kentucky, you're up, pat. how are you choosing your candidate? >> caller: i'm a republican not a democrat. >> host: sorry about that. republican. go ahead. >> caller: i'm a tanker truck driver, i haul gasoline and diesel fuel, heating oil, and i think the war on petroleum is ridiculous, and it seems like the democrats are just leading this country down a path of destruction, it's our core
values, our borders are not secure. we've got illegal im grabs that don't pay taxes working on union jobs in kentucky. our construction sites have low wage labor. it's a mess. and obamacare is a fall you're. it's just the whole country is a mess. look at the white house. they can't even keep the front door secure. i mean, what -- we need to change it. we need to show people we're not playing around anymore. and our core values, our religious beliefs, it's everything. >> host: pat you sound pass gnat about this. have you given money to the republican party? >> caller: no, i haven't. i'm trying to survive as a working man and the democrats are not cutting it in kentucky, i can tell you that right you no. it ain't happening. >> host: we're going to keep taking your calls on how you're choosing your candidate for the midterm elections. we got lines open so start dialing in now. therer a the numbers on your screen. you can send us a tweet or join
the conversation on facebook.com and our e-mail is journal at c spoon.org. we told you about the first ebola case in the united states. here is the atlanta journal constitution, courtesy of the museum in washington. this is where th the center for disease control is based. this first case is in texas. here is the "usa today" this morning with their story about it. the man left liberia on september 19th and arrived in the united states the next day but had no symptoms when leaving africa or arriving here. that's according to the cdc director. thish payent became sick september 24th and sought care two days later. he was sent home but returned to the hospital and admitted september 28th. "the new york times" this morning has this story about how the ebola is being fought in nigeria, and the actions have seemed to contain the outbreak in their country.
but they note this in "the new york times," niger ea's outbreak grew while in three other countries the disease smoldered for months and spread before a serious response was mounted. so nigeria able to so far contain the ebola outbreak in their country. here is the cdc director dr. tom freiden talking about this case in the united states. >> an individual traveling from liberia has been diagnosed with ebola in the united states. this individual left liberia on the 19th of september, arrived in the u.s. on the 20th of september, had no symptoms when departing liberia or entering this country, but four or five days later, around the 24th of september, began to develop symptoms. on the 26th of september
initially sought care and sunday the 28th of september was admitted to a hospital in texas and placed on isolation. we received in our lb torre today specimens from the individual, tested them and they tested positive for ebola. the state of texas also operates a laboratory that found the same results, the testing for ebola is highly accurate. it's a pcr test of blood. so what does this mean? the next steps are basically three fold. first, to care for the patient, and we'll be hearing from the hospital shortly, to provide the most effective care possible, as safely as possible, to keep to an absolute minimum the likelihood or possibility that anyone would become infected. and second, to maximize the
chances that the patient might recover. second, we identify all people who may have had contact with the patient while he could have been infectious. and remember, ebola does not spread from someone who is not infectious. it does not spread from someone who doesn't have fever and other symptoms. so it's only someone who is sick with ebola who can spread the disease. once those contacts are all identified, they're all monitored for 21 days after exposure to see if they develop fever. if they develop fever, then those same criteria are used to isolate them and make sure that they are cared for as well as possible, so that they maximize their chances, and to minimize or eliminate the chance that they would infect other people. the bottom line here is that i have no doubt that we will
control this importation or this case of ebola so that it does not spread widely in this country. >> host: that is the cdc director, tomorrow freiden talking about the first case of ebola found here in the united states. reaction from capitol hill, tweeting out ebola reaches the u.s. why are we allowing family visits from liberia? and then energy and commerce committee tweets out the chairman republican of michigan is going to hold hearings in the coming weeks on ebola. rob portman a republican from illinois says did's cdc announcement shows the need for active screening for ebola at the u.s. points of entry. that from the senator from illinois, reaction from capitol hill. we're getting your thoughts this morning on how you are deciding on a candidate for the midterm elections. five weeks to go, 34 days, what
is influencing your decision? is it the character? therebying on are if i? the commercial adds you're seeing for or against these candidates? charlotte, democratic caller, hi, charlotte. >> caller: good morning. the way i'm deciding, and i thank c-span this morning, one way to decide that i have decided, i think c-span for the debate from texas last night. i'm here in florida, but i watched the debate from texas for the governor's race last night. and it was fabulous. wendy davis she prosecuted that abbott man. that's what we have now. we have a republican party who is putting forward no agenda. wendy davis was the question on education, and she stated clearly when they talk about local, they're talking about pushing the tax base to the local base. that's correct, the state and --
who are controlled by republicans, they have put forth policies where we now at the local level are funding 60 to 70% of our local tax base being increased because when they state that they're going to provide something, they're only going to push that fee down to the local level. i think that wendy davis showed us proud as a woman and more importantly she talked plain, she did not try to -- i think that's what it's going to help me decide. that we need to listen to the candidates who are speaking plain on the issues about the needs that gentleman from kentucky, he's concerned about a future, he certainly needs to not vote republican because they're not concerned about providing any policies. all they're talking about is liberty, freedom, just some words. less government. that's all they're talking
about. >> host: as we noted you're in florida, are you watching a lot of these debates? >> caller: i'm watching all of the debates, greta, because that is how we then determine what is the philosophy of the parties, and what is the philosophy of the candidates. this notion that we're going to continue with a government that -- a party that has not offered anything but the same words, less taxes, less government, freedom and liberty, those are just words. you have to create a policy, and policy is education where are we going to support the duty of public education. are we going to support the security of a social security? of a health security? those are policies. >> host: i'm going to jump in there at that point. and encourage others to get to the web site c-span.org.
we are bringing you more than 100 debates for control of congress. it will be the key house senate and governor races. so as you -- many of you are political junkies, and wanting to know how these different races are shaping up, go to our web site, c-span.org and check out our coverage of these debates. we covered the texas governor's debate. it aired last night. we'll show you a little bit of the exchange coming up, but "the new york times" reports that five weeks before the november election the first open seat race for governor in more than 20 years has intensified.
ben in texas, republican caller, ben, goo good morning to you. you're a republican in texas, are are you choosing your candidate? >> host: i'm going with republican. the reason i'm -- the way i'm making this decision, just like the kentucky driver was talking about, the reality of the democrats, this lady is talking from florida. she is looking at atlanta, cheated on the education for our children, and in houston, and they were all democrats. now, you tell me, these democrats, they need to wake up and look at what obama has screwed up this nation, and he's going to do more in the next two years if we let anymore democrats to the senate. >> host: senate republican in texas, keep getting your thoughts on how you're choosing your candidates for the midterm elections. first joining us is jeff mason,
to talk about a meeting today between the president and prime minister of israel. when will this meeting take place, and what will the two be discussing? >> the meeting takes place around 11:00 in the oval office, between the two leaders, and the topics are likely to include the main topics that always come up between president obama and prime minister netanyahu. peace talks between israel and the palestinians, israel's concerns about western efforts to form a nuclear deal with iran and the latest u.s. and western effort to work on or to form a coalition against the islamic state in iraq and syria. >> host: what will the awe united states -- what will the president be asking of israel? >> the president will no doubt push israel to perhaps not publicly to find a way again to
get back into constructive talks with the palestinians on a peace deal. those talks have basically failed, and have not picked up again after a -- that ended recently, without a clear victor on either side. netanyahu will bristle at concerns that the president of the united states hazard tick you laid additional settlements to the west bank contributed to the breakdown in talks. so that will certainly be one of the larger topics. on the other hand, as i said before, the background of what's going on in iraq and going on in syria will also be a big sort of backdrop of what's going on, backdrop of concerns between the two men. >> host: what is their relationship like? >> it's been a tricky
relationship. obama netanyahu haven't exactly had easy relations during the time that obama has been in office. there's been times when netanyahu has come to washington and famously lectured the president on the long history of hardship that -- i think it's unlikely you will see today a lot of tension, at least visibly between the two men. but it's -- it's something that you've definitely seen before and something that has been sort of a thorn in both sides of obama and netanyahu and at previous talks like this one. >> host: finally, what will you be watching for? >> i'll be watching for any signs of progress on the middle east peace. i will be watching for signs that either leaders coming closer to the other on issues like iran, prime minister
netanyahu is particularly concerned about the united states and western powers will give up too much in talks with iran about a nuclear program. on the other hand, the president is looking for some sort of progress again from israel on restarting talks with the palestinians, because that is a legacy issue for the president who only has 2 1/2 years left in office in the united states. >> host: all right, jeff mason, thank you. >> my pleasure. >> host: back to our question for all of you, how are you deciding on your candidate for the midterm elections? i want to show you the 538 web site. nate silver used to be at "the new york times," now he's at espn. many of you recall his
predictions. here is what he's saying on his web site about the senate. watching the signal and not the noise. he reports that when 538 launched the senate forecast almost a month ago kay hague began had a 46% chance of winning re-election in north carolina. her chance of winning now stands at 80%. on tuesday national research survey put hagan up 46 to 41%, over the republican, tom until list. north carolina is the exception. edward, manchester, kentucky, independent caller, go ahead. >> caller: yeah, i think history is about to repeat itself in the
near future. whenever good change in our nation has to happen, it usually takes a good leader and a whole bunch of americans behind him in order for his voice to be heard at the top of the stairs and at our nation's capital. dr. martin luther king is who i'm referring to. in order for our votes to truly count, we need to put in use the technology that steve jobs left us before he died. if all americans could vote on the issues that hit the floor of their house, federal, state and local town halls, then representatives would truly have to represent the american people. that's the only way they can represent the american people, is to find out what they want. >> host: john, new york,
democratic caller, you're on the air. >> caller: hi. i'm voting because i got a feeling the republicans is going to impeach the president. that's why i'm doing it. because i don't trust them. >> host: is that motivating you to donate, as well, to the democratic party? >> caller: yes, because they keep saying -- it's like they blame the president for every single thing. i don't understand why. >> host: okay. john, "the washington post," front page, below the fold in democrats fundraising blitz, a big dose of dire. this is the type of ad that democrats are sending out and trying to get people to give to their party. on the jump page of the "washington post" on this story, ed o'keefe reports nancy pelosi tried shaming reporters.
that's an e-mail the former speaker, the minority leader in the house sent out to donors trying to get democrats to respond. calvin, new york, republican caller, hi, calvin. >> caller: good morning, greta. the way i see it, i vote republican because over the last six years there's nothing being done in the senate and the congress. and the congress put a lot of appropriation bills on the senate side, and harry reid blocks them over there. seems like the republicans have been taking the hit of not being an active congress but i believe if we get republican senate that we can get things done up there because even if the president wants to veto, veto can still be
overrode. >> i want to give you some updates this morning on news overseas. in afghanistan the u.s. and the afghanistan have signed a security agreement in that country, this from the world section of "the washington post." the agreement follows 9800 u.s. troops to remain in afghanistan past 2014, with the expectation that troop levels will be cut in half by 2016. and then the united states has agreed to take syrian refugees into the country. that's also a headline in "the washington post" this morning. also on the fight against isis, "the new york times" with a couple headlines, kurds in iraq's north are making gains against the islamic state. they have been pushing back the isis fighters along the borders there and have made some gains in northern iraq. next to that is the headline that europe is trying to stop the flow of citizens joining jihad with some legislation in france and other countries.
and the financial times this morning reporting that saudi arabia is reluck and the to examine its role in the rise of extremist ideology. and then finally, the front page of the "wall street journal" this morning has this picture of the prime minister of india who met with president obama yesterday in washington. he's vowing to cooperate on key issues. the indian prime minister met with president obama, the president gave him a tour of the martin luther king memorial here in washington. "the new york times" has a picture of the two of them walking next to that. they report that their talks controlled no resolutions to thorny disputes over taxes, trade, nuclear energy cooperation that divided the u.s. and india and recent years. and also on hong kong and the
protestors there, the world news section of the "wall street journal," the prospects of beijing intervention is worrying foreign firms and yep are dieing china's drive to modernize its finance sector. you can see the caption there. they've used those umbrellas to take shelter from pepper spray. an independent caller, cd back the campaign 2014, how are you picking your candidate? >> caller: mainly to the extent to which they uphold the constitution of the united states, we got -- we got a real serious problem with this president, and with the democratic majority in the senate, that want to destroy a good lot of what we have in the bill of rights. the bill of rights includes the
right to keep and bear arms and that certainly should be serious matter. i wish to select one's candidates for -- you know, for office. and also the right -- the right of free speech. already the democratic majority in the very first year, very first -- yeah, very first year that the -- president obama's term and they voted on the need to destroy part of the freedom of speech. >> host: okay. greg, silver spring, maryland, democratic caller. greg, good morning to you. >> caller: good morning, greta. thank you. i would like to address the points that the caller previous to me brought up. and that was, related to gun
control. >> host: okay. >> caller: now, here is what i would like to propose to the c-span audience, that basically there's a lack of an awareness that united states of america basically has ridden a whitehorse of tear a knee and slavery. and this is evident with the slavery, you know, of black actual africans, and -- >> host: tie that to campaign 2014. >> caller: 2014, so it looks like who is red and who is blue, and quite frankly i just want to let everybody know that i think that these ad campaigns need to
get a little greasier because as they are now, oh, my god. >> host: i need to get more voices in, so we'll leave it there. this is the headline from politico. he is traveling to other red states to help boost his fellow red state democrats. and then you have this also from the hill this morning, campus newspaper here in washington, that tea party revolt imperfect ils kansas. the kansas tea party supporters are threatening to sit out the state's pivotal senate election, dealing another blow to the
re-election hopes of senator pat roberts. carl, west virginia, independent caller, what do you make of your senator traveling to other red states to help democrats? >> caller: i'll tell you, he was our governor. he's just another pro west virginia politician. when 300,000 of our citizens were poisoned back in january with that elk river spill, his response was basically we're tough, we're used to this. and our two senate candidates, i
looked at their web sites. they are both pro-coal, they are both -- hates obama and tenant is going to turn off his lights. and you know that's the substance of the campaigns. there's only 20,000 coal minor jobs in west virginia anymore, out of i believe i read there was some 800,000 jobs. but yet it's like that's the only thing that matters. you know, and there's no substance on these campaigns. >> host: okay. all right, carl. on the issue of jobs, there's a couple stories in the papers this morning i want to point your attention to. the "detroit free press" has this headline. what are the future jobs? and they say that the medical field is growing, others may be scarce. that's from the "detroit free
press." the "usa today" has the cover story, an in-depth look at where the jobs are in this country. they say millions of jobs are out there for those who have the right skills and know where to look. it says here that by 2017 an estimated 2.5 million new middle skill jobs like pools are expected to be added to the workforce accounting for nearly 40% of all job growth. so i want to take you to the jump page of the "usa today." and show you the hiring spots for those interested. you got utah, 64% of middle skill jobs likely to grow by 5% or more. you got phoenix, arizona, texas is on the list. huntsville, alabama. it goes on to say atlanta and minneapolis, as well, all those states is where there is going to be job growth. and the usa dakota story gets
into what kind of jobs there are going to be and where you need to look the find them. the list goes on to new york, houston, california, and cleveland. again that's "usa today" for those that are interested. democratic call her, what do you think about the midterms? what kind of candidate are you looking for? or have you decided? >> host: well, i -- >> host: i got to put you on hold. got to turn that tv down. gary, good morning to you. >> caller: good morning, greta. believe in common sense, i think the defunding of planned parenthood is the reason we have this problem down on this southern border. and i think all the money that they spent on fighting this call
they could have probably had clean coal by now. and the thing about hamas they and the thing about hamas they remind m book. he was tearing up them wind mills. >> host: on the southern border, two stories to share with you, the "washington times," obama to give illegal miners lawyers. the price tag will be $9 million to be spent in two years for the illegal mi minors that have been crossing the southern border. president obama has approved a plan to let children apply for refugee status in central america. the program is aimed at helping to discourage many children from making a long dangerous trek across mexico and attempting to cross into the u.s. and joining their parents. caesar in memphis, tennessee, you're up now.
go ahead. >> caller: yes. i was calling in about the topic. i am an owner of a trucking company in memphis, and i feel like i'm a democrat. i feel like i probably -- our problems in this country is money. i used to be a mortgage broker, and everyone talks about obama not doing his job. and here is the problem. we got to relate back to what caused this problem. banking industry caused this problem. and the reason why i say it caused this problem is i have an independent trucking company. i came in, used my own money to support my company.
but as i travel around the country, speaking to different drivers, different companies, they always say obama is causing the company to decrease employees and et cetera. but here is the problem. the problem is that -- >> host: we're running out of time. my apologies to you. we're going to take a short break. when we come back, we're going to be talking about the secret service and the latest news that we've heard that a man was allowed to on the same elevator with the president, who had a gun and a criminal record. we'll talk about that and the hearing up on capitol hill yesterday with the director of the secret service. ron kessler is our guest, the author of the book the first family detail. later we'll be talking about a new brookings report released yesterday, new insight into the 2014 congressional primary season. but first last night's texas governor debate included some heated exchange over a forible
care act, immigration, gay marriage, education. the republican attorney general greg abbott and state senator wendy davis met for second and final debate. at one point the debate turned to a discussion of late term exn abortions. >> it's incredibly important whenever we talk to a woman who is a victim of rape or incest,iv that we start with the compassion and support they deserve. that's what i have done as suppo attorney general. by providing a record amount ofy financial support to victims ano victims organizations supporting women who have been victim of rape and incest.im that's what i'ves. done as attorney general by arrestingy more sexual predators than all attorneys general in history of the state of texas.
but, you bring up the issue, an. you know that i'm pro-life. and i'm catholic. and i want to promote a culturea of life that supports both theht health and safety of both theupt mother and child, both beforeala and after birth.efore an in texas let's be clear about in texas let's be clear about and that is, the woman hasive five months to make a very difficult decision.n. >> thank you very much. senator davis. >> you catapulted into theultedn spotlight on this issue with wih your filibuster but you recently told the editorial board of the dallas morning news you might not have filibustered if it only banned abortions after 20 weeks with allowance as for rape and incest. what kind of abortion of restrictions are you willing to accept? >> i have always believed, brian, that it is for a woman and a woman guided by her faith and her family and her doctor, m
to make these very difficult decisions for themselves.s for a i do not believe that the government should intrude in that most personal and private of decision makings. gr decision makings. believes that it is his right to intrude, even when a woman has been the brutal victim of a rape, or has been the victim of incest. thisap should come as no surprie to us given that mr. abbott's ao attitudes towards women have revealed themselves in otherrds ways. he pays women in h his office ls than he pays male assistant attorney generals. he campaigned with a known sexual predator who has bragged about having sex with underage girls. >> what about your position? >> "washington journal" continues. >> host: we're back with ron kessler, the author of 20 nonfiction books about the secret service, his latest book is the first family detail ."
you've been out and about lately talking a lot about the secret service and what happened on september 19th, the intruder making it into the east room. yesterday we heard from the head of the secret service. what's your reaction to her testimony? >> well, i think she came out sort of stony face and not in tune with what's going on. you had a cover up mentality. comments like it was dark out, that's why we couldn't do anything about the bullets. and she admitted she had actually asked for fewer personnel, which is outrageous because the secret service is totally overloaded now, understaffed. the whole budget is $1.9 million, and that includes financial crimes, counterfeiting as well as protecting the president, and a lot of other individuals. and that's -- compare that with the fbi budget of eight or $9 billion, and what's more
important than protecting the president? >> host: the secret service director noted she does not think the security plan was properly executed at the time. what was your reaction to that? >> it's a lot of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. the fact is they totally screwed up, and let's just call it as it is. she issued a statement right after this intrusion, saying that the officers exercised tremendous restraint, and she even defended that in the hearing. she must think we're all fools because, of course, what they should have done is take this guy out. first the dog should have gotten him and failing that, which obviously happened because the officers simply were not paying attention, they should have used lethal force because he could have been armed with explosives, could have been armed with weapons of mass destruction, he was armed with a knife. and to say that they exercised restraint is just laughable.
>> host: let's listen to the director in her own words testifying about the house government and reform oversight committee. >> it's clear our security plan was not properly executed. this is unacceptable and i take full responsibility. and i will make sure that it does not happen again. as director, my primary concern is ensuring the operational readiness of my workforce. i have been aggressive in ensuring professionalism and developing leaders. through active engagement with the agency siewrp vice ors and employees i made it clear my expectations for professionalism and personal accountability. much of what we do to protect the president and white house involves information highly sensitive or close fired so i'll be limited in what i can say in a public hearing. on september 19th a man scaled the north fence of the white house, crossed the lawn while ignoring verbal commands from uniform division officers, entered through the front door and was subsequently arrested on the state floor. immediately that night, i
ordered enhancements around the complex and in consultation with a secretary initiated comprehensive review of the incident and protected measures to ensure this will not happen again. the review began with a physical assessment of the site and personnel interviews. all decisions made that evening are being evaluated including those on tactics and use of force in light of the totality of the circumstances confronting those officers. i am committed to the following. a complete and thorough investigation of the facts of this incident, a complete and 34 oh review of all policies, procedures, protocols in place that govern the security of the white house complex, and response to this incident and based on the results of that review a coordinated informed effort the make any and all adjustments to include training and personal actions that are necessary to properly ensure the safety and secure utah of the president and the first family and the white house. >> host: ron cease lower what's your reaction? >> this is asia raid, because she knows very well what the problem is.
and she is glossing over it. the problem is that the secret service has a really corrupt management culture. meaning that -- not the agents. the acts are brave and dedicated. they're disgusted at this culture. and what this means is that agents who call attention to any deficiency or even report any possible threat are punished, literally. they are damaged, they are not promoted. where as agents who go along and perpetuate the myth are rewarded with promotions. and that culture colors everything. why did the agents at the white house gate let the party crashers into the state dinner? because they figured that management would not back them
if they turned away this couple and turned out they were supposed to be on the guest list. in other words the attitude is just go along, don't cause any problems, don't stand up for anything. in the case of the usher telling the agents to turn off the alarm, same thing. let's go along. we know if we're going to challenge the usher we're going to be in trouble. so let's just put the president at risk and that's exactly what's going on. >> host: and that's what you write about in politico make a gene. something is rotten in the secret service. and obama's life is in danger because of it. his life is in danger? >> no question. agents say it's a miracle there has not already been an assassination. letting anybody into the elevator with the president, it turns out he had a weapon. on and on. and in the end, it's obama whose life is at risk, as well as lives of his own family, and he is the one who really is ultimately responsible for this
debacle, because going back to the intrusion, not replacing the direct door with an outside individual who can shake up the place is not be holding to inside in, change that culture. when it's not -- you bring in a new ceo from the outside. >> host: you think that's what should be done? other lawmakers saying she needs to go? >> oh, sure. this is ridiculous. it was -- she has made the culture worse. you can tell that she has -- she is not going to admit what the real problems are. she knows what they are. she is actually perpetuated this culture. on top of all that, the secret service is understaffed, agents have to work tremendous overtime hours, so they get tired. a lot of turn over because of the poor moral. it's just a mess.
>> host: this is what usa days opinion is. she is not up to the job. the secret service needs an overhaul led by someone from the outside before it becomes a national punch line. let's hear from jim in virginia, independent caller. you're up first, jim. go ahead. you got to turn the tv down. you're on the air. >> caller: actually, i'm in gainesville, florida. i gave them 322601. sorry about that. >> host: no worries go ahead. >> caller: i think he has a lot of important things to say. i thought that with the president did constitutionally. we heard that secret service has power to take the president bodily out of harmful situations. the reason i say that is if that's true they need to be given some authority to actually do something and not worry about political overtones, and it's really important they do that.
>> host: i >> it simply needs a good manager. we know if you have a bad ceo, everything is going to fall apart and that's exactly what has been happening. this started back in 2003, when the department of homeland security took over the secret service from the treasury department. it just became more political, more compliant, more subject to political pressures, and that's when this laxness and corner cutting began .. inch inc
they had to be screened for explosives. attach anuld explosive to the underside of a car imagine the agents just forget it. that sends a message you take protection lightly and you do not make waves. host: east orange, new jersey. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i agree. the woman should be fired. the alarm was muted. the door was open. there was a black woman in a car with a baby in the back and she is dead. she drove around in circle and she was shot. host: that example was brought out not too far ago.
that is why some of the agents showed reservation in not shooting the intruder. guest: she doesn't know why they showed that. i believe it is because of a fear of richard b chin by management. i think she should have been shot. she could've had explosives and was threatening the capital. if you cannot wait to kill capital police, let's get real about this. people say it is terrible to push back the perimeter of the white house fence. he is on tv almost every day. on twitter almost every day. it makes no difference in terms of access to the president. it is a myth to talk about that. host: what do secret service say
about the fence? guest: they bow to political pressures. white house political people never want direct access to anything. that is why president reagan was almost killed. the was before a lot of cutting corners started. the secret service did not want people near reagan. the political staff overruled the secret service. the secret service rolled over and played dead and went along. the white house wanted people to have access to the president. 15 or 20 people had access to the. resident that is why john hinckley was able to shoot the president.
benny,emocratic caller, stockton, california. they missedree that the director. she should be terminated from her job. inhink they were light their duty because they allowed this gentleman to penetrate their defense and get into the white house. i was just thinking that if it had been a black gentleman, he would have been dead. they should be across -- anyone who penetrates defense should be shot. you never know. he could have had bombs on him.
host: they said they knew of the intruder. they were familiar with him. guest: i do know that threats are not investigated as thoroughly as they should be. paid,e attention had been they could have uncovered more information to show he should have been given mental italian relation as a threat to himself or others. they would need some kind of additional information. how hard is it to protect the white house? one thing the secret service does, they have rejected offers to upgrade the detection systems for weapons. the d.c. police have detectors for detecting gunshots.
secret service does not have that. they said it was dark out that night. for is a good explanation why the white house was not shot up. the uniformed officer did report the gunshots. it was something else, backfire. she was afraid to pursue it. the same thing, management culture stifles dissent. host: the collapse of the secret service. the budget and size has fallen in the last few years. about 6900 staff positions and now has about 6600. billionet failed to 1.8 in 2013, in part because of automatic cuts demanded by congress.
connecticut, evan, a republican. kudos to want to give mr. kessler. he is right on the money. i can attest to what he is saying as far as budgets and morale. i was in a town of 50,000 people. over the last quarter-century, things have gotten worse as far as administrators. up one has the guts to speak and tell the truth. down. cap going down and ofkissed the bots -- butts
criminals and those who support him. no one has the guts to tell the truth. she was shot. everyone was blaming the police, but they did their job. guest: normally in police departments, they have regular training every year and update them on lethal force policy. all of these things are changing all the time. the secret service does not do any of that. when it comes to firearms requalification, they do not allow time. then they asked agents to fill out their own test scores. --honesty her myriads permeates the agency. members of congress go to visit the training center in laurel,
maryland. service will pretend to put on the scenarios that show the great heroism. pretendd the bombs and this is all very spontaneous. beforeecretly rehearsed hand when members of congress come. what kind of message does that send to agents? all of this is in my book. it is a roadmap to what is wrong with the secret service. host: what needs to be done? dewey have to move the first family to a different house every night? what other functions do they perform? what should be done about the secret service? guest: you have to have a good manager. bob mueller change the agency to
become more prevention oriented. it is not rocket science to protect a building. we have nuclear facilities that are well protected. simply corrupt in the sense that the culture discourages agents from doing their jobs. host: laura on twitter -- michigan, independent caller. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i agreed with some of the previous callers. i was upset about the young woman who was shot with the baby in the backseat. the way she was driving, hey. she needed to be taken down.
washington was put under lockdown. what happened that this didn't happen? why wasn't there a lockdown? host: you are referring to september 19? guest: it happened so quickly. i do not think that would have made a difference. she was prevented from entering the white house grounds. 19, the whiter house intruder. there was a lockdown when the woman was driving her car. guest: i do not think it went beyond the white house itself. the idea that anybody would take any action like that is very remote. forcethis issue of lethal came up at the hearing yesterday.
here is what one member had to say. [video clip] see overwhelming force. if an intruder would not be stopped, perhaps more lethal force is necessary. i want those officers to know that this member of congress has their backs. do not let somebody get close to the president or his family. if they have to take lethal action, i will have their backs. in this day and age, we don't know what is going on underneath that person's clothing. theyey want to penetrate, need to know that perhaps they will be killed. that is the kind of secret service i expect. i thank them again for their
service and dedication. we need better leadership. it is not happening. host: we covered the hearing yesterday on c-span. boardall street journal" echo wing saying mrs. pierson should be fired. what about the snipers on the roof of the white house? guest: that was not a failure. normally they release the dogs on the grounds. that has been effective in the past. the agents were not paying attention. an off-duty officer tackled this individual. officerowered a female in the white house complex. strongesto have the
individuals there, even though it may sound politically incorrect. you cannot take a chance and have people who cannot take out someone who may be an intruder. host: are you saying all females? guest: absolutely not. in this case they needed somebody who could tackle this guy. they emphasize and promote females. agents wouldmale be in trouble if there was an attack and the agents would be vulnerable. there are plenty of reasons to have lots of females. but sometimes you need a male. host: woodbridge, virginia.
caller: i am glad i came on after that clip. the representative at the what happens if the guy was killed? the same people would have said, did. look what you you killed an iraq war veteran. guest: it is colored by what happened in ferguson, deserving. -- missouri. we still don't know what happened. an example of police overkill by implication. i have been to the fbi training academy at quantico. it is difficult to make that decision about whether to shoot someone. just like that, the officer
could be killed and his family desecrated. there are plenty of examples of police abuse. we have to recognize what a difficult job these people have. from boston. caller: good morning. i have a question and a comment. lot ofk everyone -- a o people in this country are dancing around an issue. i think there is a problem with respect for the president. i think the secret service just doesn't care about his safety. i think she should maybe be let go. hassecret service may be
perpetuated a disrespect for the safety of the president. i don't hear anything like that on the show. guest: just the opposite. the agents are willing to take a bullet for the president, no matter who he is, or even hillary clinton. detail as ad to her form of punishment. they pretend to be compassionate. behind the scenes, she makes their lives miserable. they are willing to take a bullet for that individual. it has nothing to do with race. i wish we cannot mention the color of somebody's skin. it should be so irrelevant to these discussion. host: do you think this culture was happening during the george
w. bush presidency? guest: it started under bush went home i'm security took over the secret service. the person that doesn't seem to have respect for the president is the president himself. he keeps defending the secret service over and over again. every time there is a new scandal. when they hired prostitution -- his deputy of national security adviser said after the intrusion, we have confidence in the secret service. they have a hard job. they are failing at that job. who is the guy that is going to be killed? obama. it shows class a lack of management judgment.
host: many have announced investigations on capitol hill. is going to be announcing a full review of the secret service, legislation to establish a panel to conduct a top to bottom assessment. you have the government reform committee. and then julia pierson said she would do an investigation. this is gerry connolly yesterday. he was part of the hearing. reaction up on capitol hill and what they expect to do next on this latest intruder and the breach of security on the elevator that was reported yesterday. reed in shelton.
caller: good morning. i wanted to make a few comments. maybe the president -- it is a complicated endeavor. the president travels all over the world. we are talking about a scenario and the white house. maybe we should consider the residency not in the white house and moving the president in a pattern or nobody has an idea with the president is. leave the white house for tours and domestic consumption. maybe we build a moat. shouldn't we add troops. aren't we at war? if someone can get close enough to kill the president.
i think the chain of command dictates something so important that this person who was in qualified. she was head of you and resources -- u.n. resources. she needs to step down. they need to remove this person. maybe the leadership of the secret service, get it out of the department of homeland security. host: ok. guest: the perimeter should be expanded. beyond that, i don't think any drastic measures need to be taken. it is a simple matter of getting somebody who knows what he or she is doing. these panels and hearings and reviews are all pointless. going back to the intrusion by
saidalahis, the director we are going to fix everything. nothing ever changes. imagine if apple or microsoft had a problem and somebody held hearings to fix it? get rid of the ceo. get somebody who knows what they are doing. host: patrick is next from illinois. caller: good morning. this is a very important conversation. i am so glad there has been bipartisan support on the hill for getting to the bottom of this. this is not political anymore. terrorists, they are taking notice. showed19th, hollywood
before "white house down." you thought it could not happen. a simple guy could run across the lawn to an unlocked door. where are the automated systems? you had a dewar that was predicated on a human being locking it. they could have had an automated feature. you talk about the defense measures. where is congress in looking at that part of it instead of looking -- listening to the chiefs of staff that is so slickly embedded and is so ineffective. this is not going to be resolved. she should be fired. unlockedaving a door is an example of the arrogance of the secret service.
we are the great secret service and we can take care of any problem. it is ok to unlock the door. we do not want to inconvenience the white house staff. they might need to use a key card to enter the white house. it is unbelievable. agents and officers are afraid to voice their opinion and point out these obvious problems because they will be punished. host: we have about five minutes or so left with ron kessler, author of "the first family detail." he has written many books about the fbi and cia. lines open for republicans. there are the numbers on your screen. ,ndependent and all others
202-585-3882. a couple of tweets. host: peter baker has a piece in "the new york times" about the ever expanding list of unwelcome visitors to the white house. that, peter baker, "the new york times." mike is next. the president is responsible for the secret service. [indiscernible] host: very hard to understand you.
the president should not be responsible for the errors of the secret service. guest: shouldn't be? that is crazy. it is the president whose life is at stake. risk.s life is at he has the responsibility to all of us to replace julia pierson with someone from the outside who will change the culture of this agency so that we don't have another assassination. that is the last thing we want. it nullifies democracy. host: you have said that you think there could be an assassination. guest: absolutely. that is what agents tell me. the word "assassination" is very shocking.
it could happen. there are chances that are taken all the time. in ane was allowed elevator with obama and he had a weapon. nobody should be allowed in an elevator. i have another example in my book, "the first family detail." agents were ordered when they were protecting president obama to divert a going protect his assistant in maryland. it is unbelievable. she had been harassed by a neighbor and called the police. retrieved records on the neighbor. a violation of criminal law to do that when you have no legal basis.
was the chiefrson of staff to sullivan. host: will the president be able to go on his walks through washington to get out of the white house and shake hands with people, go to a local restaurant? guest: i think he should be much more cautious. h-poohents tend to poo risks. lincoln had a d.c. policeman. he went off to have a drink and that's why he was assassinated. jfk did not want agents on the rear running board. if they would have been there, they would have attacked him after the first bullet, which was not fatal.
you have a problem when president did not understand they may be mortal. caller: thank you both for taking my call. i feel that this is an ongoing problem. people at the head of the irs and other departments. long to let a person in a top position go when they should. they put them in a position in a different place. guest: president obama did understand that they needed to go in another scandal. he pointed up james comey to head the fbi. he knows how to get good people and take action. with thee is obsessed fact that the agents who protect him are very impressive people.
he thinks this is the whole secret service and doesn't want to take action. i am sure these agents are claiming to him that everything is fine, not reporting real problems. upbe michelle will wisen because she is more concerned about security then he is. host: hi, dwight. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have had family who have worked in ancillary positions in the white house since the reagan administration, and the general consensus is that attitude -- leadership reflects attitude. it goes from the top down. host: ok, similar to what you were saying. guest: that is exactly the point.
it was a poor choice to put pierson in. she was part of the culture in which he was chief of staff to the previous director. you can tell from her performance how out of it she has been mentioned was asked uniforme fact that the officer reported gunshots in 2011, a supervisor overruled her and she felt she couldn't push , pierson just tha says "we will have a professional review of this and is justview her," as it an anomaly and it is an intimidating response, we will re-interview her. her management style has made his corrupt culture even worse. host: roger, alabama, our last year for mr. kessler.
caller: i workedcaller: on the beaches back in the 1960's a long time ago. i'm about four years older than him. i came back from a clinic near campaign and he was in birmingham and i left a meeting and i had on the same suit that i had at the swim bank in guatemala, and the guatemala pin on. over -- the guy at a meeting earlier, walk over to university and they waved to me around the metal detectors. i didn't know what was going on. to the college, they help the robot for me to get into the vip area and they guy --in and some everything went off good and build came over to talk to me
and he remembered me. bill came over to talk to me and he remembered me. host: roger, we are running out of time. what is your point? caller: the security. guest: that is something that they often don't do. this book i often go into -- under pressure from white house or campaign staffs, they will let people into events and rather than ruffle any feathers, they will just let them in and that alone is a scandal. host: ron kessler, we appreciate your time. he has read and -- written recent magazine pieces for politico and "time" magazine. coming up, we will talk to the lincoln mark -- elaine kamarck. she will talk about the future of american politics.
later, our "spotlight on magazines" series will continue elle" magazine and a wide-ranging interview they did with supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> nato has a new secretary-general. he started work today. he is the 13th secretary-general in the transatlantic organization's 65-year existence. his the first secretary-general from an alliance nation that thatrs russia, that-- borders russia, and he has the blessing of vladimir putin. protests continue in hong kong. if the leaders say that territory leader doesn't resign by thursday, they will step up actions including occupying government buildings. the secretary of the hong kong federation of students, which is play a key role in organizing the student protest -- in organizing the protests come it
says that student leaders would welcome an opportunity to talk with the official, and thousands of residents have occupied key areas of hong kong posting for greater electoral -- pushing for greater electoral reforms after beijing decided to screen candidates for the territory's first direct election. ybook has this exclusive -- house majority leader kevin mccarthy will have visited 100 district on behalf of candidates by election day, according to na. last week he was in three western states in less than 24 hours. in the last days before election day, mccarthy will campaign in a dozen states to some for more ,han 20 members and candidates including california, maine, new york, new hampshire, new jersey, virginia, and georgia. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> here are a few of the
comments we have recently received from viewers. >> i love c-span. i get up and watch it every morning, and on the weekend, the book reviews for the whole weekend is terrific. the other thing, i really liked very little of the major television channel -- i really watch very little of the major television channels, nbc, cbs, and those come up because i think that your programs have more to do with what is going on in everybody's life. so thank you very much. no >> just like to leave a comment for c-span, particularly the "washington journal" program. it is a credible to me that c-span has one neoconservative propagandist after another. if it is not from "the wall street journal," it is from aei or foreign-policy initiative for that ilk and.
>> i want to say that c-span is a very good program and a very interesting program, and i love the occasional historical efforts you make as it is educational, and it is also just a good way to keep -- [indiscernible] >> continue to let us know what you think of the programs you are watching. join the c-span hundred station. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. "washington journal" continues. host: we're back with elaine kamarck, the director of the brookings institution's center for effective public management. primary season is over. what did the results tell us about what will happen over the next five weeks? we were hoping,
frankly, when we went into this study, the first comprehensive study of candidates in primaries , we were hoping that we would find something about the conversation with in each political party that would give us hope that maybe the next congress would be a little bit more able to govern. unfortunately, what we found is two that story stood on the republican side, we found excessive polarization -- two bad stories. on the republican side we found excessive polarization, just this kind of no no no attitude that we have seen in past republican congresses. on the democratic side we found very little conversation on issues at all. it was a kind of dismal season as far as people looking at democracy were concerned. host: who ran in the primaries and why? at 1662e looked
candidates who ran in congressional primaries, house and senate. most of them were men, most of them had more than a college degree, not surprising. slightly more veterans in this abolition at the large, which was interesting -- then in the population at large, which was investing. a lot of afghanistan and iraq vets seeking to do public service. group.t was the they ranged from really serious challengers to kind of jokes. ut.y ranged to the full gam host: what about those that won the primaries? guest: mostly incumbents won, which is not unusual. it has been the case for many decades in american politics. on the other hand, we have seen plenty more challengers than we
have seen in the past -- host: i want to show viewers this graphic, because this shows from 2004 although it 2014 house incumbents facing primary challenges. it has increased. even though it is hard to do. guest: even though it is very is five to which 1200 or so challengers are pretty brave souls because they went out there against the odds. the other thing we found is that the margin of winning has been decreasing. especially for the republicans could this year for the democrats it went out what that is because the democrats did not have as many challengers as republicans. winning isargin of decreasing despite the redrawing of district to make these districts more republican or more democratic. guest: remember, we're talking about primaries. host: right, but you would think
that when you redraw it, i am safe -- guest: it protects you in the general election. it does not protect you in the primary. more and more people are saying to themselves, oh when this is a safe republican or democratic district, if i can win the primary i am going to win. you see a lot of challengers -- we also see a lot of ideological challengers, and that is something fairly new in the last couple of cycles. host: what does that say, then, especially on the house side, a toughy might have won primary battle but then they have got a turn around and run again in two years. what does it say about how they will govern on capitol hill in the next two years? guest: we asked a whole variety or look at a whole variety of issues.
it is slightly different by issue. interestingly enough, this primary season encompassed. period of timea where we saw russia takeover theine, the rise of isis in middle east, and nobody, nobody talked about foreign policy. it was simply not in the primary conversation. so i don't know what they will do. on health care, which everybody talked about, the republican candidates to a person had no nuance.it was all repeal, repeal, repeal. it wasn't i wouldn't do this or i would do that. on the democratic side there was more candidates you would talk about let's mend it, don't end it kind of message. on immigration, there were some republicans, particularly business republicans, who had a
more moderate view on immigration reform. so maybe there is a sliver of hope on immigration reform in the next congress, assuming that republicans retain control, which i think they will. talking about the 2014 primaries and what that means for november and the future of governing. cheryl in california, democratic caller. caller: yes, my comment is basically, i think it is important that the american informedhe american people look at the track record over the last two what, ok, to see exactly has been going on -- maybe not even just the track record over the last two years, but since this president has been in office, when the house was taken over by the republicans. because since then, the country has been at a stalemate.
you know, nothing is happening, nothing is getting done. we went to the supreme court on the health care issue, and they are still beating that dead horse to death. host: all right, elaine kamarck. right,she is absolutely republicans are beating that dead worse to death, and unfortunately, they continue to do so in the primaries. those who to us that go on to get elected, the primary winners who go on to get elected, are going to have the same take no prisoners attitude towards health care that we have seen in the past congresses. i don't think that is very constructive because i think the health-care bill is here to stay. we could probably use some amendments and improvements to the bill, but with this attitude going in, looking at just the republican candidates, unfortunately, i don't have much hope that their attitude is going to change. side? on the democrats'
guest: the democrats were obviously very supportive of the president and the health care bill. the democrats were more willing to talk about what they would change in the health-care bill and more warmly to say i would like to improve the health care bill, things like that. host: what gives you concerned about how democrats are talking during the primaries? guest: well, overall and with a couple of exceptions, democrats really didn't talk about issues. it was really no conversation going forward. it was all about protect social security, protect medicare, it was all kind of backwards look. which i understand in the face of republican attacks on those programs. on the other hand, looking towards 2016, democrats are going to need a little bit more robust program than just let's protect social security and medicare. host: republican line in kensington, maryland, just
outside of washington. go ahead, andy. caller: i am a little bit puzzled, because anyone who follows politics knows that you are a longtime democratic party operative. i believe you were a top aide to vice president gore. how are viewers supposed to listen to you today, as someone who is theoretically objective, or as a democratic operative who is sort of hiding behind this fake shield of objectivity? host: talk about your background. guest: yes, absolutely, i work for vice president gore, i worked for the democrat national committee, etc. i am also a political scientist with a phd and this is a study we did at brookings with a team at every and we looked single candidate in the 2014 primary and we simply coded
their responses and published a paper on it. i'm equally critical in this paper of democrats and republicans but for different reasons. republicans are extremely polarized and that will be nonproductive in the coming congress. i think the democrats are kind of brain-dead. they have not much in the way to say to voters in 2014 and 2016. as a scholar i can say, yeah, looking at might data, which is in this paper and fully , there is a problem in both parties. host: florida come independent caller. caller: hello. i was curious about your views on politics, considering money in our campaigns. guest: when we did a presentation on this yesterday at brookings, we also included
the campaign finance institute, and they have done a comprehensive study of these primaries in terms of money and who is spending money. interesting findings they had. more liberal, independent expenditures this time around than in 2012. on the republican, conservative side, the balance between anti-astonishment republicans and -- anti-establishment republicans and business republicans literally flipped almost vertically between 2012 and 2014. that was the effect of the chamber of commerce and other business republican groups really spending a lot of money in these races. so, yes, there is plenty of money on both sides. what was interesting to us was to see internally where the spending was. host: michael is watching us in the bronx.
democratic caller. caller: hi, how you doing? host: good, go ahead. caller: i want to talk about the situation with the republicans and democrats. havealways think democrats -- republican base always think about supporting the war and stuff like that. i think the democrats are basically for the people, by the people, native evil. we are -- native people. we are all natives. host: i think we got your point, little hard to hear. democrats are for the people and republicans talk about war. is that what you found? guest: we didn't find democrats or republicans talking about the war. for both parties it seems like there was no foreign policy at all, which is disturbing for both parties because it is part
of the job on capitol hill to look at foreign policy. in the republican party, we have a strong new faction, however, led by rand paul. there is a growing faction in the republican house, a lot of tea party advocates are in favor of this. they are really not in favor of .ore -- of war they are in favor of u.s. intervention abroad. that is something you in our politics with the arrival of the tea party. york.alex in bronx, new republican caller. caller: i have a question i wanted to get a suggestion from the, what is it, the guest. host: from brookings? caller: i want to know what they have done for us and our country, just for gathering the vote and being a candidate of that position, they said a lot gatherans and mottos to
the votes from other people in different states but after they got that position, they focused all they have promised to us. guest: i'm not quite sure -- host: i think he was talking about promising something during the primary and not following through. guest: first of all, since very few incumbents lost, only four, basically, the people america will have to choose from this november are the same people who with thee now, exception of some open seats for seate retire and the four lost.e incumbents so far what we know of polling in these states, it looks like a lot of these people will be reelected. i think what makes sense, the way it makes sense to think about this, the way scholars
have always understood this, is that yes, americans are very disapproving of congress, particularly disapproving of thistime was -- of congress, but they always tend to like their own congressmen. own don't do their congressman or congresswoman in the broad picture of disliking congress. incumbentse its -- get reelected. church -- caps a on -- baton rouge. caller: with the increase of hispanic voters and asian voters, is that coming into play this election? and the republican party having a shrinking electoral base, please comment. thank you. guest: sure. that is a very good question. there is a big demographic change in the united states.
if you look at the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, that demographic change clearly favors democrats, so it looks like it is good for democrats. the difficulty is that the way the districts are drawn in the way they decide to live with each other, there are a lot of at our safeh republican districts, and they are not likely to change in the near future in spite of the changes we are seeing. while most people agree that these demographic changes help democratic candidates for the white house, they are not helping democratic candidates in particular for the house of representatives. these close some of senate races we may see some of that, but this is a slow and gradual process. host: on twitter
guest: you know, that is a great question, because to our surprise, we did not find very much attention in the primaries to these social issues. now, there is two possibilities there. one is that if you are running in a republican primary in a very conservative district, probably everyone is against gay marriage and you don't have to talk about it. ditto if you are running as a democrat in a very liberal district, the opposite holds true. overall, with the single exception of women through productive rights, we do not see these issues talked about in the primaries. candidates did not put their position on gay marriage up on their website. some of them had their position on abortion rig, right to life, etc., on their websites.
but it is adjusting that these issues that have been so much a part of our politics were not as prevalent as we expected them to be. host: on these issues, you look at who ran. did you look at who voted on these issues? ofst: no, because the number people who vote in primaries is exceedingly small, and nobody ever polls these primaries. this is a great big black hole in american politics, which is who does vote in these primaries? we can make some educated guesses based on who votes in presidential primaries. we can make some educated guesses based on one goal after the fact asking people -- one asksthat after the fact people how they voted, but those are not always reliable. we don't know much about the people who voted in the primaries. that is what we want to do next. we want to study who ran in the
primaries and next we want to study who voted in the primaries. if there are any multimillionaires out there with nothing to do with their money, we know a way to use it. [laughter] host: we are talking with elaine kamarck of the brookings institute, center for effective public management, talking about this latest report that they did about the 2014 primaries, who ran and why. jerry, rhode island, democratic caller. caller: good morning, greta. a i would like to make a comment on each party having influence on people that are going to be running in the primary and maybe putting more money towards this candidate. it almost seems like if i go to a primary, i am a democrat, i would be better off going as an independent voter because then i would have a choice of who i am going to vote for. after the primaries when it gets to the regular election, there
will be two candidates each party seems to favor the money behind the candidates. it almost seems like the slugfest between the two candidates -- i got a call just last night with the governor's , and you could tell the republicans were coming down on were tryinges, they to find fault with it. to me it is also political gam e. when you go to make a vote i would rather just vote for the person. guest: most americans actually feel like you do. they are sick of the political game and would rather just vote for the person. that is what everybody says. most people vote
pretty much regularly for one party or the other. aren't at it -- there lot of true independents in the country. they actually do vote for the party. real, the slugfest are actual differences over issues. in other words, it is not trivial game. it is about deeply held belief s on each party about the best way to go income and a lot of the people who vote for these candidates also have deeply held beliefs. you here this morning presidential elections than in midterms -- people say, "oh, my goodness, if romney wins i am moving to canada." "if obama wins it is the end of america as we know it." this fight reflects something going on in america at this time. host: independent in florida. good morning, ronald.
caller: what i want to talk about is nothing is being said about what our government really is today. when we listen to the republican party talk, when we listen to the democrats talk, we are not listening to the real ruler of our people. the real ruler of our people today is a shadow government of the power elite. they are calling the shots, pulling the strings behind our congress. how congress is sold out, lock, stock, and barrel to campaign contributions. host: ok, elaine kamarck. guest: i think there is a certain amount of truth to that. there's an awful lot of money in politics and that is problematic. on the other hand, big money doesn't always win. if that was the case, eric cantor, who had plenty of big money and was by any measure a
nlutocrat, he would have wo his race could we have lots of examples of billionaires spending loads and loads of money and losing. spent how much money on it newt gingrich's presidential campaign and he failed. there's an awful lot of money in politics and we have to watch it. in.ey doesn't always w sometimes it means but it doesn't always win. nonetheless we ought to be vigilant about what they're spending money on. "washington times" says david brandt is noncommittal to boehner as the speaker and would not say whether he supports the president's tactics against islamic state terrorists in syria. ralph, democratic caller. caller: i was calling because
the republican party and the -- are bothboth based on -- they emphasize myths to move their base. on global myths is warming. they have a weather machine in alaska that he took the hemisphere and there are four of these around the planet and that is causing global warming. they are doing it so they can extort money. th isepublican party's my 9/11. they keep throwing out -- 9/11 was perpetrated by our government on a system they could start the wars for oil money. host: ok, that is ralph's opinion. dave, question or comment. caller: i have a comment and i will take it off-line. america was not made on agendas.
it started on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. not what i can get, but what can change and help me and others. repeal whole laws and regulations would help free up american. stupid is what stupid does. laws are made for ignorant people. i appreciate your answer. host: elaine kamarck, do you have any thoughts? guest[laughter] guest: not sure how to answer that. because that is the way we operate to live together in a complex society. we can't have everybody running through the red lights at the same time. that is the law. i think it is a rather sweeping statement, and that there are a lot of good laws and a lot of probably not so good laws. but basically, we do need laws. host: let's talk about the candidates that ran in districts
where there was a retirement, an open seat. you had these safe districts for the republican or democrat in the long-time member retired. who ran, who won, how will that impact congress? guest: there are a small number of districts like that. you have a wide variety of winners. you can tell from the people who won the primaries in those statistics that they will look pretty much like the previous congress. the democrats are basically supportive of the obama agenda. they are not inclined to push it in any other direction. the republicans are really pretty polarized. all the republicans, whether they call themselves tea party or not, are absolutely dedicated to getting rid of the president's health bill and are pretty polarized. going back to the example you just read about the person who
a lot ofcantor's seat, republican primary candidates campaigned on a platform of i will vote against john boehner. you can see that in that party more so than in the democratic party, there is an internal power struggle going on. nonetheless, i suspect given the small number of incumbents who were defeated and the relatively small number of open seats, probably we are going to see more of the same in the next congress. will we see more of that faction within the republican party as well between the tea party movement and traditional establish republicans? guest: the story is different for the house and the senate. it looks like if everything goes well, the tea party could actually pick up about five or six seats. they will be slightly stronger in this congress. on the other hand, most of the
establishment republicans have already taken on a lot of the tea party issues. i'm not sure it is going to make much difference. on the senate it is a different story. the establishment candidates be at all the tea party challengers, and therefore i think the republicans by putting so much money in for their incumbents and establishment candidates, the republicans increased their chances of taking the senate. host: vernon, new york. sarah is watching us there, independent caller. caller: hi, how are you? host: morning. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: ok. and the declaration of independence, it said of the people, by the people, for the people. it did not say of the republican and democratic, or independent parties. my thing is that if i like
somebody, i vote for them. likenot like a republican rand paul or whatever. host: ok, sarah, and will take your point, if you like someone, you vote for them. guest: that is obviously clearly what all-americans joe, that if they like someone, a vote for them. what happens when you look at what people do is that people -- some people tended to always end up liking democrats and others always end up liking republicans. shortcut system is a for busy people who are doing other things to figure out what kind of politics may support and what kind of candidates they support. that is why we have never seen in the history of all the democracies in the world, we have never seen a democracy that didn't have political parties. what the parties become is a shorthand way for people to say,
oh, i like those guys rather than those guys. that is all it is. and people do regularly vote other than their party, but friendly, not as often as you think. host: bill in oklahoma, republican caller. caller: yes, ma'am, i voted for obama twice but i can't vote for him again. on the democratic ticket, although i have done that in the past, the reason for this is the national debt has gone from a trillion tothan $10 $18 trillion while obama has been in office. my insurance premiums have gone up at least 35%. the borders are wide open and the president must to keep them wide open, so that the democrats can gain more potential voters -- , has ok, elaine kamarck
this primary season been about a referendum on president obama? guest: yes, it has very much been a referendum on president obama. ads, youe republican see obama used in obama criticized. it is absolutely a referendum on obama in the republican primary. obviously, not in the democratic remarries, with the small exception of the small number of democrats who call themselves moderate who are running in swing districts or even in a republican district. i think what most people think is that going into the general election, what is going to happen is that attitudes towards obama are heavily going to influence the voters, i like the gentle man who called, a lot of people are not going to vote for the democrat because they're mad at obama and that dynamic alone could be responsible for the republicans winning the senate this time around. host: florida, democrat caller.
you have got a turn your television down. we will put you on hold and we will try to come back to you. nebraska, republican caller. ben, you are on the air. caller: i want to tell you why i switched to republican and all people should. , they passede back nafta -- if you become a republican, you automatically -- listenede calls last night for a half-hour and you'll get all kinds of stuff. you get polls from all over the country wanting to know how you are going to vote. didn't get any of those when i was a democrat. host: ok, we will take that -- is one party more aggressive in
their outrage? guest: where does the gentleman live? host: i think in nebraska. guest: in areas where one party thinks it is going to win and the other party doesn't think it has a chance, the party that doesn't thing that has a chance doesn't want to spend its money in a place where they think it is going to be wasted. there are red states and blue states and nebraska happens to be a pretty red state, party republicans they -- pretty republican state. it doesn't surprise me that you got more attention from republicans in that state than from democrats. if you live in a new york state or massachusetts or california, .ou might see the opposite the country has gotten very polarized. people live in places where the neighbors are like them. i remember during the 2004 election traveling with somebody who lived in southern virginia
in northern california and he said, "oh, my goodness, this is exactly the opposite," in terms of the democratic signs and republican signs. a lot of this depends on where you live in the country. host: woodbridge, virginia, independent caller. caller: yes, i am calling to say, we have got two political parties, basically the republicans and democrats. and in general, in reference to the political parties, i found a lot of people that don't do research. when you ask the question, why do you form this opinion? "well, i really don't follow politics." but they have an opinion. somebodyle are led by else's opinion. they don't do independent research on issues or nothing. they vote based on what they hear, not based on what they have research for themselves. host: elaine kamarck.
guest: that is absolutely true. most people vote on who their neighbors are voting for, their friends, their family. a lot of people's predisposition to vote for one political party or another comes from their parents. if you grow up in a democratic home you might be more sympathetic to democrats, and vice versa in a republican home. yeah, that is the way people do it. i don't think it's necessarily the best way to do it but people are busy and a lot of people just don't have time for politics. , they listen to somebody that they know, that they trust him and they just take on that opinion. if we all had more time it would be much better, if we spent more time looking at our political decisions fo. host: north carolina. james, republican. caller: yes, i would like to say old, i'm fromears
north carolina, and for years we had a democratic governor, but ien bill clinton came in, changed over to republicans. i found out that republicans are about the same. what's wrong is that the vision of the country -- the division of the country, and mr. obama when he got in said "we won, you lost." he is forgetting the other side of the people out there. in fact, the whole congress is forgetting them. host: all right, to james' point about division in this country and people say both parties are the same, they are disgusted, congressional approval rating at an all-time low. guest: chemical. host: -- terrible. host: is that why people didn't turn out in the primaries? guest: they take place over a period of six months, a lot of
them take place and not just when families are on vacation and not thinking of anything other than politics. congressional primary turnout is really disturbingly low. i think that what we're seeing here is a lot of frustration with the two political parties on capitol hill. they can't come together and actually govern. all they're doing is continuing their posturing that they do drink election -- during the elections and the primaries, which americans aren't fond of, as we effort in the questions. a lot of people hope that when they get into office they would actually do their job, and that does not seem to have been the case in the last couple of years. that is why people are so unhappy with congress as a whole. but unhappiness with congress as a whole has never translated to throwing out your particular
congressman. we will see if that changes this time. host: people are also not liking the amount of money that goes into these campaigns. is the money given that is funneled into primaries versus general elections? guest: pretty much the same. pac's, a lot of independent expenditures. primaries are lower-cost elections than our general election. senate primaries cost more than house primaries, etc. some people in these primaries spend $40,000. some spend $4 million. there is a wide range, also, in the primaries. a lot of people who run in primaries don't raise a lot of money, they raise it from the family, the music from their friends -- they raise it from their friends. every once in a while you get an eric cantor upset, i kind like the guy who wom -- a guy like
cantor who beat eric raise almost no money and beat somebody with much, much more money. y in texas, republican, and our last here. caller: hi, good morning. i would like to ask the guest what her opinion or explanation is that when a democrat wins an election, the democrats are all over the media saying it is the will of the people, it is amende -- a mandate. however, when a republican wins the election, suddenly they are supposed to compromise with democrats. ofst: first of all, 20 republicans say it is the will of the people and it is a mandate when they win elections. remember a couple of presidents saying that. what is new here is that we haven't had a republican actually closed
down the government or threatened the credit rating of the united states. s of theeme action republican majority have freaked people out, and there is a sense that this is going beyond making your point and that there is some room for compromise. that doesn't mean that you give in. housepublicans have to and they have a very powerful point of view and position. but the sort of all or none attitude when they didn't have the senate and they didn't have the presidency disturbed a lot of people. it would be one thing if they have the senate, had the presidency, and then they can actually do their whole thing. but when you have divided government, the expectation is that people will compromise, that the leaders will in fact compromise. that is what was surprising about the last congress.
we will see if the next congress , if the republican leaders do the same thing. host: to follow more of elaine kamarck's work, go to brookings.edu. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: coming up next, our "spotlight on magazines" series continues. we will talk to "elle" magazine about their wide-ranging interview with justice ruth bader ginsburg. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> u.s. businesses continued hiring at a solid pace in september. it is the sixth straight month of solid gains. employers added 213,000 jobs last month, up slightly from 200-2000 in august. 200,000 areove usually enough to lower the on employment rate. economists surveyed forecast that the government's report
will show 215,000 jobs were added in september, while the unemployment rate remained at 6.1%. today marks the first day of whitel year 2015, and ben of politico reports that the white house plans to turn its focus to the economy. officials are strongly touting the presidents address tomorrow at northwestern university's kellogg school of management. the white house communications director writes that the president will make the case for what is always fueled american leadership, and that is american economic greatness. he added that president obama will take a step back from the rush of current events to explain what we have done to recover from the great recession and what we need to do to ensure that more middle-class americans feel that progress in their own minds. c-span will be covering that address. kno ofs tweet from mark cbs news, it isller jimmy
carter's birthday. -- it is jimmy carter's birthday. he turns 90 today. >> our campaign 2014 debate coverage continues. tonight, live coverage of the minnesota governors debate dayton,governor mark republican candidate jeff johnson, and independence party candidate hannah nicollet. coverage ofered -- the oklahoma governor survey, between joe thornton and governor mary fallin. on c-span two, the nebraska governors debate. saturday night on c-span 8:00 p.m. eastern, live coverage of the montana u.s. house debate between democrat john lewis and former state senator, republican ryan zinke. more than 100 days for the control of congress. c-span's student can
competition is underway. this competition for middle and high school students will report 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a documentary on the topic "the three branches and you." videos need to include a c-span programming, show varying points of view, and must be submitted by january 20, 2014. am.org forentc more information. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on wednesdays in our last hour of "washington journal," we look at recent magazine articles as part of our "spotlight on magazines" series. if you have missed any in the past, go to cspan.org. today we're focusing on "elle" magazine, which did a wide-ranging interview with supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. joining us is features editor laurie abraham. why did "elle" decide to focus on justice ginsburg? guest: well, we thought this was
a time where her decisions were getting a lot of attention, particularly with hobby lobby, her dissent in that case, where she said it wasn't -- violated the constitution and equal protection to allow a for-profit employer not to pay for contraception for women. we felt like she was a voice that is consistently standing up for various women's issues, and it seems like a good time to talk to her. where various issues like abortion are getting a lot of attention and it seemed like a good time. host: she doesn't do a lot of interviews. this is a rare interview. how is the writer able to get this? guest: yeah, it was fortuitous.
we basically just asked. we wrote a letter and told her in a sidebarested in the piece about one of her early clients and we wanted to check on that case, a case before roe versus wade where the client was in the military and she got pregnant and he was 1969 and in the military if you got pregnant, you had to quit or have an abortion. it was one of the only places on military bases where abortion was allowed. this woman did not want to quit, nor did she want to have an abortion. ginsburg took her case. that case was eventually settled . although it was accepted by the supreme court, it never went to the supreme court. roe was the case of the reproductive rights -- the big case, obviously. there have been a lot. we wanted to talk to her about
, and she agreed to a half-hour interview, which frankly did not seem like enough. happened.at we hoped the writer was there and i texted her about two hours after it started and asked "are you still there?" "yeah." she gave her and x or hour and a half that day and did a follow-up on the phone later. host: when people -- one thing that came out that people who watch the court are wondering is will she retired? "who do people think president obama could appoint at this very day given the boundaries that we have?"
host: laurie abraham, it is she going anywhere? guest: well, it doesn't sound like it from that. she must be hoping that maybe in we keep alection democratic president and maybe change the composition of congress. -- know, it doesn't sound because she thinks the republicans would filibuster anybody who has any kind of progressive record like hers, i think she is reluctant to step down. -- she said she doesn't watches herself and she doesn't feel she is any less sharp. she will stay doing the job. host: we are getting your thoughts this morning on supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg, featured in "elle" magazine in their october issue, ing supreme."
host: it is a wide-ranging interview and she talked about many different things. "elle" magazine being a women's magazine -- what do you think you are in women, justice ginsburg -- she represents to women, justice ginsburg? pinnacles resents the -- one of the highest positions a woman can hold in american society. precededy o'connor her, but she is only the second woman on the court. she is known for her incredible erudition as well as everyday for theempathy people who, for her in the court -- come before her in the court. if you pay attention to her like i sort of do, she had an
incredible marriage, lots of support for doing something back when she became a lawyer and judge was not very typical for women. and she also has been one of the early founders of the women's rights project at the aclu, a lot of that was focused on reproductive rights, focus on other things, too. i think she is one of the more important women in american society right now. of the1-year veteran court, 80 years old. do young women know who she is? guest: well, in the piece, she brought up the fact that some people have made t-shirts with her face on it saying "notorious taking off of notorious b.i.g. she seemed kind of thrilled by
that. i mentioned it to my daughter, who was 14, before i came here, and she know who she was. i hope young women know who she is. i don't know if there are surveys done or not. [laughter] host: what do you think her legacy will be for women, specifically for feminism? did you ask her about feminism? guest: well, we asked her in various ways. one of the questions was why do you think young women don't call themselves feminists as much as maybe in previous generations? she said she thought they just didn't understand a word. which't about man hating, everyone knows but it seems like you can't say this enough. it is't about man hating, about equal citizenship status for women. if she asked her about was running the aclu project today, as opposed to the 1970's,
what kinds of issues would be on their agenda? ase talked a lot about how bi today is unconscious in the sense that it is harder for the law to get around. she told this great story about opera buff andn she loves the orchestra and 20 or 30 years ago, there was a belief that female musicians weren't as good as male and that is why they weren't in orchestras. they started having people audition behind the curtain, and what you know, more women were hired. she told this story in a public venue and one of the musicians in the audience said, "we still do that but we can't wear heels. otherwise they can distinguish our gender." anyway. host: so what do you think her legacy will be on feminism?
guest: well, i think her big legacy will be around reproductive rights and trying as ash back what she sees kind of conservative push on restrictions on abortion clinics. also on contraceptive access, which is what hobby lobby was about. case.ssented in that in other words, which he believed would not be the law of the land, she talked about other justices sent from other areas becoming adopted 50 years later and becoming routinely accepted. she talked about in terms of maturity cases, there was the case of the virginia military case where the court basically says you cannot have separate but equal to use race language.
they do not realize they have the rights they have. birth control, i just wanted to say, not that we should have to defend that alone, birth control should be enough, but women need to have -- they are also doing birth control. we do not look at that as a medical necessity as well that should be included in health insurance. >> yes. that is a non-contraceptive use for it.
i think a lot of women do appreciate people. to the earlier question, i think a lot of young women know who ginsburg is. the caller hast a sort of gangster attitude. there is something called the ruth bader ginsburg -- block, basically people writing fan letters about the favorite parts of their decisions. these are mostly young women. so i think she is pretty appreciated. it is not just reproductive rights. other key cases where waged his commission was the issue.
saying basically that you do not have to sue immediately. do not sue immediately after you realize your pay is less than a comparable man. sometimes, you do not find out for a while. anyway, in this term, there is a pregnancy discrimination case. she could not comment on her specific opinions about this, but this is a case where the plaintiff was working for ups, givent pregnant, she was restrictions that she cannot not lift more than 20 pounds, and usually when people are given medical restrictions at ups, they change their jobs around to accommodate them for a while, comedy disability. ups said pregnancy is a distant -- we can understand why they said that merit -- narrowly.
it is not a disability and therefore she could not be accommodated and therefore, this woman had to quit her job. she lost her medical benefits for her pregnancy. this is passing a pregnancy discrimination law and we're still litigating it 30 years later on what teams in a simple me but what -- to do i know? whetherorter asking her or not a female president will make a difference. justice ginsburg response -- >> i think she must be hoping that someone like hillary clinton gets elected. i mean, you know. i think in her lifetime, that would be the most likely prospect.
piece have noted in the that she says she will not go anywhere and she feels like she can keep going. she of that is because exercises twice a week. this struck me on this. she says i have a traitor who tells me what to do. i do weightlifting and push-ups. >> i know. i was pretty impressed. she is such a tiny person and looks so tiny, but that is how she stays strong and keep doing her job. thought that was interesting. >> she talks about when she had he told her that she had to exercise and she was weak after all the treatment. and that is why she adopted the exercise. >> he wants to know, what is the
issue and what is its connection to women. women into write about all their complexity, everything from political issues they care about, social issues they care about, to the close they care about. we are trying to really talk to women. i like to say that we do not tell women what to think, but how to think. we do not do a lot of , but weforward advocacy explore issues we no matter, whether it is through a profile, other reported pieces. we do a lot of personal essays as well. minneapolis, and independent color. you are on the air. >> good morning. thank you. there is no doubt justice ginsburg is a remark will prison. does -- it just does
the ability of the supreme court. since the gore election and the controversy of the supreme court, the public change their and i think a lot of younger people talk about the the supremet -- court has no theory of justice or theories of law. this is based on political biases. i think this is something that really has to be dealt with. when you are talking about justice ginsburg, it is nice to hear about her. she is a remarkable person. but this type of interview really hurts the image of the -- court.urt area >> i know that is an issue and it has been for some years. the court has been talking to
justice go leon he other side. he did a massive interview in new york magazine about a year ago. she does not comment directly on cases, some of her political views definitely come through on this. i do not know there are any big secrets because of her past work and because of the opinions she continues to write, so, in a way, i do not know. i think it is a tough question. i remember debating this kind of thing. i went to law school and remember debating this with people and this was a big issue in our classes in particular. one of the arguments on the plus side of it would be that transparency is good. it lets people learn how the justices reason and come to various decisions. i think a lot of people can feel very cut off from them.
the majesty of the court seems very removed from people's lives. and yet the substance of the cases are often so gritty and real that the disconnect can be disconcerting to some people. that might be arguing on the side of speaking. i know it is something that worries people if they do a lot of interviews. >> c-span did a documentary on the supreme court. we did interviews with the sitting supreme court justices and some that retired as well. if you're interested in hearing more from justices, you can go .o our website if you want to read the whole they didthe interview with justice ginsburg, you can go to our website. reigning supreme is the issue. it is the october edition.
appreciateham, we your time. thank you for talking to our viewers this morning. coming up, we will open up the phone lines here. you can start dialing in now on anything you have heard on public policy issues. if you want to keep talking about the supreme court, you are welcome to do that, or the fight against isis. where youg yesterday heard testimony from the head of the secret service department, her testifying about the recent intruder into the white house, and the news that came out of that that the president recently was on an elevator with somebody who had a criminal record, a contractor, and who was carrying a weapon at the time. we will get your thoughts on those issues or any other policy issue. republicans --
join the conversation at twitter or facebook.com/c-span. .ou can also send us an e-mail , the firsta outbreak case being reported here in the united states comments many of you know, but the new york times reporting this morning on nigeria's actions have seemed to contain the outbreak in that country. three african countries are still overwhelmed by the epidemic. in the new york times, the report nigeria's outbreak, it spread widely. the atlanta journal-constitution this morning, this is their headline on that first case of ebola in the united states. in georgia, the state newspaper there, that is also where the center for zip -- for disease control is located. is inrst case cited
texas. also this morning, front page, where they are in this country, millions of jobs are out there for those who have the right skills and no where to look. by 2017, an estimated 2.5 million new jobs are expected to be added to the workforce, accounting for nearly 40% of all jobs growth. it says the pay is at least $13 an hour and many pay much more. these jobs require training but far less schools and a bachelor's degree. technology has given many a makeover, leading them worlds away from the center line predecessors and challenging the notion that blue-collar jobs are dead in this country. an in-depth look at jobs. comment baltimore maryland, a republican.
". go ahead. what is on your mind? caller: think you for putting me on. i am from nigeria. i just want to comment that more than two years, the government of nigeria charged with buying time,s -- for all that [indiscernible] the terrorist group was -- in many parts. we had to go to china and russia to try to buy those weapons. the u.s. would not even allow the u.k. to sell those weapons
because they said the soldiers were abusing. this kind of confused and indecisive [indiscernible] host: ok. all right. bruce, in massachusetts, democratic caller. caller: i'm calling in about the interview you had from the -- with the lady from the brookings institute. someone was waiting for thering into the equation conflict between democrats and republicans and the reelection of congress people that there is a strong, religious current undergoing, especially of the republican party. just to understand the dynamic of what is going on and the andr of the religious right
how they affect republicans and therefore the whole political system, that they are very much against the government, they want the government to come down, they do not want the government to succeed, because they perceive the government and democrats as evil. about the ever talks power of the right wing, christians, mostly, who are oning such a powerful effect this as we see it now. >> all right, twin falls, idaho, independent color, good morning to you. you are on the air. i do not think you have a specific subject right now, -- my comment is >> we're are open phones. go ahead. caller: there is a saying that
the industry, some companies are too big or whatever. it is obvious the united states government is too big to function. host: ok. hawaii, republican caller. what is on your mind? caller: hello hot. calling about the situation with the president's hall being so open. i wonder why nobody has hit on problem, which is that congress is so dead set, the atmosphere is so negative that him, that it appears --ce nobody was on the post it seems to me that somebody would say, wow, is this a set up?
>> ok. if you missed the hearing, we covered it. .o to our website lawmakers grilling over what happened on september 19 as well as other security lapses that happened recently. in other you -- in other news, there is a story from the washington post, a pricey bathroom break. owed overllars sting arrest. that is from the washington post this morning. matt in new hampshire, independent color. -- independent caller. caller: thank you for c-span.
my candidates, look at what they're saying. issue of secret service, i want to bring up the point nobody is thinking about. the white house is international symbol. we have a thing called the smithsonian institute. if they desecrate the front door of the white house, they better move the original door. the front part of the door is irreplaceable. look at things with a historical view. the front door of the white electronicing in locking and not preserving the door, it is ludicrous and outrageous.
>> where she said there -- she has no intention of stepping down and those who think president obama could put someone on the court who shares her views, she thinks those people are misguided. erwin,those people is who has written opinion pieces about this before and says she should shut -- she should step down. a law professor. responding to that, the justice herself responded and mention him by name some time in interviews. the response to the magazine interview with, i love you, ruth, but it is time to go. he said, let me explain why i believe those calculations are wrong and could end up hurting .er in deciding when to retire, ginsburg, the eldest among the nine justices, should maximize the chances her successor will
be someone with values and views. herp-ed was written urging to resign. only by allowing president obama to replace her in 2014 with there be a sufficient likelihood that someone of similar ideology would take the place of the 81-year-old justice. his bird nominated in 1993 by president clinton had step down this summer, president obama could have virtually anyone he wanted confirmed. there is a clear democratic majority in the senate and little history of filibustering supreme court nominees. if republicans try to filibuster, the senate could abolish the filibuster for supreme court justices, just as it did last year for lower federal court justices and appointees to federal agencies. republicanas, a caller. hello. we are an open phones. good morning. >> good morning. andpreciate the interview
the article left completely out the infanticide she has always voted pro-infanticide to kill a baby in the womb. there is a total believe in judaism, which does not allow for the killing of babies in the womb. genesis, isaiah, the prophets, they do not allow for murdering a baby in the womb. that's all right. frank, clinton, maryland, democratic caller. >> good morning. i have two comments. one is for the voting coming up in november. if anyone is voting for a representative that chess the anythingt down against -- if anybody votes for the republicans, you get what you vote for.
everyone needs to be dismissed because they're really not looking out for him. >> all right. others are calling for julia pearson to step down. you have also got in the opinion section of the paper, the op-ed, the wall street journal saying she needs to be fired. there it is on your screen. got in the op-ed -- the editorial pages of the new york times, the collapse of the secret service and saying that mr. obama will now have to upide whether ms. pearson is to the job of protecting him and his family as well as the reputation. minimum, an- at a independent top to bottom review of the secret service, not one conducted by those trying to detect themselves or their agency. we will go to gary, republican
caller. >> i have got three things that are bothering me. in congressi see they're having sessions, i do not know whether it is written in the bill of rights or whatever it is in the operation of congress. there should be no business brought to the membership of congress. i see on tv there are maybe 10 people in the whole room and somebody is presenting a bill. that is wrong. everybody should be there to do their job. also, where is it here? i am surprised the people of nancy pelosi's home state did not recall her for her part in obamacare, here it is. let's vote on it and then we will see what it says. >> all right. steve, phoenix, arizona.
democratic caller. what is on your mind? caller: you brought up a thing about larry craig. what i thought about larry craig was larry craig probably did more for gay rights than anybody else. he does not get any credit for it but remember, he was caught doing a bath or dance in the bathroom and then accuse of being gay. ok.: a study says half of wildlife is lost in 40 years. has half in the past 40 years according to the world but why -- the world wildlife federation. is the latest -- it is the latest measurement. matt, independent color. -- caller. caller: how many lies we're losing in nature. i was calling about vaccines. i just wanted to make a comment. i know you're talking about women's rights. we are talking about merck's. there is an article from a
former doctor who is predicting it will become the greatest medical scandal [indiscernible] talking about how, from what he understands, basically, it will be one of the biggest scales because they will find out over time that this vaccine both technically and scientifically has no absolute -- absolutely no effect on cervical cancer. >> we will have to leave it there. now on capitol hill, the house foreign affairs subcommittee on western hemisphere is gathering for a hearing on that marine being held in mexican custody. live coverage here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]